Professional Web Applications Themes

Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison? - Mac Applications & Software

To comp.os.linux, comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.sys.mac.system subscribers, >> From: Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu>, > From: - ILUVJazz - <ILVJazzNYOB.com>, >> Is it hype or has apple n away the x86 world? >> >> Any pointers most appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> Jim > > [url]http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/[/url] The information on the above page is both misleading and inaccurate. It has been debunked many times, in this forum, in other forums, and by Apple and VeriTest. The reasons for the benchmark discrepancies are already known: GCC was used on both platforms, even though it does not produce the most efficient code on either, and the ...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    To comp.os.linux, comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.sys.mac.system
    subscribers,
    >> From: Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu>,
    > From: - ILUVJazz - <ILVJazzNYOB.com>,
    >> Is it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    >>
    >> Any pointers most appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> Jim
    >
    > [url]http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/[/url]
    The information on the above page is both misleading and inaccurate. It
    has been debunked many times, in this forum, in other forums, and by
    Apple and VeriTest.

    The reasons for the benchmark discrepancies are already known: GCC was
    used on both platforms, even though it does not produce the most
    efficient code on either, and the PowerMac used a less-efficient but
    better-performing malloc library.

    Other claims on the page, that HyperThreading being disabled decreased
    test performance, that compilations were done on the Dell workstation
    with optimisations disabled, and that Apple is engaging in misleading
    pricing, have already been exposed as blatently dishonest.

    Criticisms across the internet have referenced the above article as
    evidence in an unprecendented fashion. Some of the articles linked to
    from the above page link back _to_ it. A minority of sites that have
    published information from the above source have actually displayed
    impartiality, whereas a majority of them have wilfully ignored
    information from multiple other sources contradicting what is on the
    above page, including the vendor.

    And of course, this is rounded off by the brazen audacity in claiming
    that spl of haxial.net is the only voice for truth out of a chorus of
    misguided, zealous believers. It occured to these news sources to
    validate the claims of an independant, established benchmarking company
    on the basis that they were paid by Apple (it's not like they were
    going to do it for free, after all), but the same scrutiny was not paid
    to the counter-claims of an anonymous individual on the internet.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    digitaleon.
    digitaleon Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    [email]packeos.ucar.edu[/email] (Daniel Packman) wrote in message news:<be1j8c$mdl$1news.ucar.edu>...
    > While the scalar code (integer and floating point) speed
    > of the G5 is clearly similar to that of p4 machines,
    > the big performance gain is still with code that can
    > be vectorized.
    And broken into multiple worksets for parallel processing.

    P4 has its "hyperthreading". Dual G5's, with the supporting memory
    controller, are the real thing.

    Complicating these comparisons is AMD's Opteron platform, which
    appears to offer competitive bang-for-the-buck in multiprocessing
    applications.

    One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!

    =Heywood=
    Heywood Mogroot Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find directspeed comparison?

    in article [email]33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com[/email], Josiah Fizer at
    [email]jfizerclassy.com[/email] wrote on 7/4/03 2:50 PM:
    > On 4 Jul 2003 11:46:50 -0700, [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> [email]packeos.ucar.edu[/email] (Daniel Packman) wrote in message
    >> news:<be1j8c$mdl$1news.ucar.edu>...
    >>> While the scalar code (integer and floating point) speed
    >>> of the G5 is clearly similar to that of p4 machines,
    >>> the big performance gain is still with code that can
    >>> be vectorized.
    >>
    >> And broken into multiple worksets for parallel processing.
    >>
    >> P4 has its "hyperthreading". Dual G5's, with the supporting memory
    >> controller, are the real thing.
    >>
    >> Complicating these comparisons is AMD's Opteron platform, which
    >> appears to offer competitive bang-for-the-buck in multiprocessing
    >> applications.
    >>
    >> One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    >> the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!
    >>
    >> =Heywood=
    >
    > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    > [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
    > Newsgroups
    > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =---
    1. You know you're sharing your Sun dualie and the eight-headed beast with
    everyone and their mother who happens to be on the same LAN and have access
    to all your lovely CPUs?

    And

    2. Exactly how fast are the CPUs on yours, the two CPU Suns I deal with
    daily use 360 MHz Ultra SPARC II and our two 8-headed beasts have 400 MHz
    Ultra SPARC II?

    Michael

    Michael Doster Guest

  4. #44

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 19:23:52 GMT, Michael Doster
    <michael.dosterverizon.net> wrote:
    >in article [email]33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com[/email], Josiah Fizer at
    >jfizerclassy.com wrote on 7/4/03 2:50 PM:
    >
    >> On 4 Jul 2003 11:46:50 -0700, [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> [email]packeos.ucar.edu[/email] (Daniel Packman) wrote in message
    >>> news:<be1j8c$mdl$1news.ucar.edu>...
    >>>> While the scalar code (integer and floating point) speed
    >>>> of the G5 is clearly similar to that of p4 machines,
    >>>> the big performance gain is still with code that can
    >>>> be vectorized.
    >>>
    >>> And broken into multiple worksets for parallel processing.
    >>>
    >>> P4 has its "hyperthreading". Dual G5's, with the supporting memory
    >>> controller, are the real thing.
    >>>
    >>> Complicating these comparisons is AMD's Opteron platform, which
    >>> appears to offer competitive bang-for-the-buck in multiprocessing
    >>> applications.
    >>>
    >>> One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    >>> the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!
    >>>
    >>> =Heywood=
    >>
    >> And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    >> systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >>
    >>
    >> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    >> [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
    >> Newsgroups
    >> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
    >> =---
    >
    >1. You know you're sharing your Sun dualie and the eight-headed beast with
    >everyone and their mother who happens to be on the same LAN and have access
    >to all your lovely CPUs?
    >
    That would be myself and I for the single and dual and myself and the
    end users for the 4 way systems. I'm still setting up the 8 CPU system
    I administrate for the dev team to test on.
    >And
    >
    >2. Exactly how fast are the CPUs on yours, the two CPU Suns I deal with
    >daily use 360 MHz Ultra SPARC II and our two 8-headed beasts have 400 MHz
    >Ultra SPARC II?
    >
    >Michael
    The quads are e450s with four 450mhz UltraSparc II CPUs with 4 megs of
    cache per CPU. The eight way system is a Sun Fire 3800 with eight
    900mhz (?) UltraSparc III CPUs and 16GB of RAM, not sure of the cache.

    My home systems are a dual 400mhz Ultra60 and a single CPU CompactPCI
    server running at 333mhz. Despite the low speed, these systems take a
    much higher load then the PC and Macintosh boxes I use. On a single
    task yes the PC or Mac is faster, however under heavy work loads the
    Suns just keep on chugging away while the Intel and Apple boxes grind
    to a halt. Different tools for different tasks, overall I like the
    Suns better.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
    Josiah Fizer Guest

  5. #45

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    has been out for some two years.

    KeS

    (Will enjoy seeing an Opteron/Sun/G5 comparison in September, should be
    interesting.)
    Kevin Stevens Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:58:13 -0700, Kevin Stevens
    <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    >In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    >
    >> And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    >> systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >
    >Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    >talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    >has been out for some two years.
    >
    >KeS
    >
    >(Will enjoy seeing an Opteron/Sun/G5 comparison in September, should be
    >interesting.)
    Blade 1000 Dual = ~8000$
    Blade 150 = ~1200$

    Suns have been 64bit since the Ultrasparc series.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
    Josiah Fizer Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    If I could just run Painter, DeepPaint and PhotoShop on there ...
    Tom Guest

  8. #48

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <ts2ht-va32.ln1pursued-with.net>,
    Kevin Stevens <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    > In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    >
    > > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >
    > Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    > talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    > has been out for some two years.
    >
    > KeS
    I'm a personal computer user and have never heard of the Blade 100/150.
    Could you tell more about it please? What's the price?
    Guest

  9. #49

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:15:03 GMT, <lowerslobovvia.com> wrote:
    >In article <ts2ht-va32.ln1pursued-with.net>,
    > Kevin Stevens <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    >> Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    >> > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >>
    >> Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    >> talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    >> has been out for some two years.
    >>
    >> KeS
    >
    >I'm a personal computer user and have never heard of the Blade 100/150.
    >Could you tell more about it please? What's the price?
    The Blade 100 when it was introduced (not sure you can still get it
    from Sun) cost 900$ and was a 500mhz UltraSparc IIi based system. Very
    nice little case etc. Go check out Suns web page for the current
    systems such as the Blade 150.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
    Josiah Fizer Guest

  10. #50

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <mjnbgv09p9d6vuglgvnod1c8au9h4mr39f4ax.com>,
    Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:58:13 -0700, Kevin Stevens
    > <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    > > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > >> systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    > >
    > >Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    > >talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    > >has been out for some two years.
    > >
    > >KeS
    > >
    > >(Will enjoy seeing an Opteron/Sun/G5 comparison in September, should be
    > >interesting.)
    >
    > Blade 1000 Dual = ~8000$
    > Blade 150 = ~1200$
    >
    > Suns have been 64bit since the Ultrasparc series.
    64 bit workstations, not PCs.

    [url]http://www.sun.com/desktop/sunblade150/[/url]
    flip Guest

  11. #51

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <flippo-63349A.07070705072003news.central.cox.net>,
    flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    > In article <ts2ht-va32.ln1pursued-with.net>,
    > Kevin Stevens <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    > > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > > > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    > >
    > > Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    > > talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    > > has been out for some two years.
    >
    > Which happens to be a workstation, not a PC.
    >
    > That is, unless you're going to join Stutts and Foo in pretending that
    > you know more about Sun's computers than Sun does.

    You mean to tell me that we are not compairing a personal computer?
    Then what is he talking about comparing a workstation to a Apple 64 bit
    computer? It sounds like some more NG BS.
    Guest

  12. #52

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <lower-BD83F6.08010105072003zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
    <lowerslobovvia.com> wrote:
    > In article <flippo-63349A.07070705072003news.central.cox.net>,
    > flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <ts2ht-va32.ln1pursued-with.net>,
    > > Kevin Stevens <Kevin_StevensHotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <33jbgv8451jjl9umn0c47peprnmlv10sjq4ax.com>,
    > > > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > > > > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    > > >
    > > > Go price a Blade 2000 and you'll see. Though it's funny to hear Apple
    > > > talk about the "first 64-bit personal computer" when the Blade 100/150
    > > > has been out for some two years.
    > >
    > > Which happens to be a workstation, not a PC.
    > >
    > > That is, unless you're going to join Stutts and Foo in pretending that
    > > you know more about Sun's computers than Sun does.
    >
    >
    > You mean to tell me that we are not compairing a personal computer?
    > Then what is he talking about comparing a workstation to a Apple 64 bit
    > computer? It sounds like some more NG BS.
    Sun calls their Sun Blade a workstation, not a PC.
    flip Guest

  13. #53

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <slrnbgdms0.qjh.mattaudrey.boggle.org>,
    Matt McLeod <mattboggle.org> wrote:
    > In <flippo-FD8FA3.07082405072003news.central.cox.net>, flip wrote:
    > > In article <mjnbgv09p9d6vuglgvnod1c8au9h4mr39f4ax.com>,
    > > Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > >> Blade 1000 Dual = ~8000$
    > >> Blade 150 = ~1200$
    > >>
    > >> Suns have been 64bit since the Ultrasparc series.
    > >
    > > 64 bit workstations, not PCs.
    > >
    > > [url]http://www.sun.com/desktop/sunblade150/[/url]
    >
    > It's not a very useful differentiation, particularly so at the lower
    > end (i.e., the Blade 150) where it is effectively a PC with a CPU
    > that is neither x86 nor PPC compatible.
    >
    > "Workstation" these days is a term for the marketing people.
    Which is exactly what's relevant to Apple's marketing claim.
    flip Guest

  14. #54

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    Steve Lidie <lusolcube0.CC.Lehigh.EDU> writes:
    > Now, now, Sun has never been a player in the multi-CPU, high
    > performance computing market - their CPUs are too slow and don't
    > scale. They can't touch, for instance, an SGI system with hundreds
    > of CPUs, gobs of memory bandwidth, etcetera ...
    SGI top-of-the-line Origin 3900 can have 128 CPUs per rack; the Sun
    Fire 15K can have 106 CPUs per rack. Wow, big difference. The 3900 can
    have 256GB of RAM per rack, the 15K can have 576GB.

    Though, to be fair, SGI has "NUMAflex" (or whatever) where these
    numbers supposedly can be increased for each "image": the website
    says 512 CPUs, and 1TB of RAM.

    Saying that Sun's CPUs don't scale is a bit much; I don't think there
    are theoretical issues with more CPUs on a Sun, just that no one is
    really asking for more (at least, not asking Sun).

    (I'm assuming that the Origin 3900 runs IRIX.)

    --
    David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, [url]http://www.magda.ca/[/url]
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
    David Magda Guest

  15. #55

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot) wrote in message news:<dd5de929.0307041046.488feeeposting.google.c om>...
    > [email]packeos.ucar.edu[/email] (Daniel Packman) wrote in message news:<be1j8c$mdl$1news.ucar.edu>...
    > > While the scalar code (integer and floating point) speed
    > > of the G5 is clearly similar to that of p4 machines,
    > > the big performance gain is still with code that can
    > > be vectorized.
    >
    > And broken into multiple worksets for parallel processing.
    >
    > P4 has its "hyperthreading". Dual G5's, with the supporting memory
    > controller, are the real thing.
    >
    > Complicating these comparisons is AMD's Opteron platform, which
    > appears to offer competitive bang-for-the-buck in multiprocessing
    > applications.
    >
    > One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    > the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!
    >
    > =Heywood=


    I don't know what vectorization is. My interest is in being able to
    run (multiple copies of) matlab as fast as possible. I know it does
    not use multiple processors, but I can run multiple matlabs, which
    helps.

    Does Matlab take advantage of vectorization?

    Thanks
    Jim
    Jim Kroger Guest

  16. #56

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    Steve Lidie <lusolcube0.CC.Lehigh.EDU> wrote in message news:<be5bc8$hm2fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU>...
    > In comp.sys.mac.system Josiah Fizer <jfizerclassy.com> wrote:
    > > On 4 Jul 2003 11:46:50 -0700, [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot)
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>packeos.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote in message news:<be1j8c$mdl$1news.ucar.edu>...
    > >>> While the scalar code (integer and floating point) speed
    > >>> of the G5 is clearly similar to that of p4 machines,
    > >>> the big performance gain is still with code that can
    > >>> be vectorized.
    > >>
    > >>And broken into multiple worksets for parallel processing.
    > >>
    > >>P4 has its "hyperthreading". Dual G5's, with the supporting memory
    > >>controller, are the real thing.
    > >>
    > >>Complicating these comparisons is AMD's Opteron platform, which
    > >>appears to offer competitive bang-for-the-buck in multiprocessing
    > >>applications.
    > >>
    > >>One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    > >>the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!
    > >>
    > >>=Heywood=
    > >
    > > And I'll keep working away on my dual, quad and eight way CPU Sun
    > > systems and wondering what all the fuss is about.
    >
    > Now, now, Sun has never been a player in the multi-CPU, high
    > performance computing market - their CPUs are too slow and don't
    > scale. They can't touch, for instance, an SGI system with hundreds of
    > CPUs, gobs of memory bandwidth, etcetera ...
    >
    > Steve

    I used a 24 cpu SGI at Princeton. Nothing we ever did could keep more
    than one cpu busy, which would get the work done slower than a G3.
    Course the prof still got to brag about his super computer that cost
    in the upper six figures.
    Jim
    Jim Kroger Guest

  17. #57

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot) wrote in
    news:dd5de929.0307041046.488feeeposting.google.co m:
    > One thing's for sure, the coming year is going to be a good year for
    > the high-end PC/workstation user... 3-way competition!
    >
    "If your computer had eyes, you'd look like a statue."
    --Unknown
    Buteo Lagopus Guest

  18. #58

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <12e8gv45er1ub8d3mtfvgstdg40j8onj994ax.com>, - ILUVJazz - <ILVJazzNYOB.com> wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:20:31 -0400, Jim Kroger
    > <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote:
    >
    > >It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    > >
    > >Any pointers most appreciated.
    >
    > [url]http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/[/url]
    Many of the points this guy made have since been discredited, IMO.

    He views $1999 as a "misleading" price. (good grief!)

    His attacks on Apple's and (particularly) Veritest's integrity are
    unjustified and unreasonable.

    He seems to _completely_ accept the (IMHO dubious) concept that:

    Highest SPEC score === Fastest computer (always, period)

    (Treating SPEC numbers as _the_ single defining metric, rather than
    one measure among many)

    One question this gentleman never stops to ask is:

    Do *other* applications on the Intel platform see the radical
    improvement in performance that SPEC sees when compiled using
    the Intel compiler instead of gcc?

    My understanding is that they do *not*.

    Intel appears to have added specific optimizations in their compiler to
    maximize its score on the SPEC benchmark. This is common practice these
    days, and is done to varying degrees by all vendors offering a compiler
    proprietary to their hardware. Tweaking your compiler to get better
    benchmark scores is a good move marketing-wise, though it makes the
    value of the benchmark itself as a useful comparison tool a bit more
    questionable. And at this point in time, SPEC is the one to tweak for.

    Using gcc instead of the Intel compiler was a reasonable decision, IMHO.

    I neither know nor care enough about compiler options and BIOS settings
    to make an informed judgement on those issues, but given his general
    ranting and hair-splitting mode, I certainly won't take _his_ word
    for 'em.

    Finally, it is quite clear that for just about any task you throw at it,
    a dual G5 will be at worst a few percent slower, and for a few things
    2-3 times faster (see the BLAST results) than the fastest dual Xeon
    systems today.

    Application performance is what matters (to anyone who uses a computer
    as a tool, rather than an ego-stroking device), not SPEC results. I
    don't know how anyone who watched the keynote demos could not come
    away with a least a kernel of doubt about the usefulness of SPEC in the
    face of _large_ performance gaps for apps like Mathematica and
    Photoshop. For customers looking to buy a machine for running _those_
    apps, it is pretty clear that SPEC is an almost useless predictor
    of application speed when comparing different platforms. And that the
    G5's are indeed _fast_.

    Either a dual Xeon or a dual G5 is *way* faster than anything that you
    could get in a PC-priced system two years ago. Given the replacement
    lifecycles for most desktop users, it is a very small percentage of
    people who have the "fastest" PC on their desks at any given time.
    And a claim of "fastest" only has a "shelf life" of 3 months or so
    anyway, in a fast-paced market like this.

    The obsessing over Apple's claim to have the fastest PC is simply
    juvenile - no one machine is "fastest" for all applications, and
    Apple provided a lot more solid justification and doentation
    for their _marketing_ claim than others have done.

    This guy's 15 minutes of fame are just about up.

    And I fully expect that when people start running real applications
    on these systems, that the relative performance characteristics will
    be closer to what the application demos showed than whatever SPEC
    might claim.

    I can't wait.

    --
    Jim Glidewell
    My opinions only
    Jim Glidewell Guest

  19. #59

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <6dcb1c5e.0307062144.7e17b67posting.google.com> ,
    [email]krogerprinceton.edu[/email] (Jim Kroger) wrote:
    > I don't know what vectorization is. My interest is in being able to
    > run (multiple copies of) matlab as fast as possible. I know it does
    > not use multiple processors, but I can run multiple matlabs, which
    > helps.
    >
    > Does Matlab take advantage of vectorization?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Jim

    How does matlab compare to Mathematica? If they are similar enough
    then the Mathematica demo might be relevant to your expectations
    for a G5 running matlab. In that case, I believe the keynote
    demo showed Mathematica running 2x the speed of a 3GHz Pentium/Xeon.
    Arturo Pérez Guest

  20. #60

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    [email]krogerprinceton.edu[/email] (Jim Kroger) wrote:
    > Does Matlab take advantage of vectorization?
    This is a good question and should probably be addressed to Mathworks;
    I have not seen a definitive statement anywhere. It is likely that
    they use LAPACK to perform matrix operations, in which case it is
    likely that they link to veclib, Apple's Altivec implementation of
    lapack. In that case, many matrix operations would be vectorized and
    would run exceedingly fast.

    However, it is unlikely that this is a major consideration. While
    operations that are efficiently vectorizable will run faster on the
    G4/G5 than anything out there by a considerable margin, such
    performance gains are far from universal -- especially in the
    mish-mash of Matlab code. If you really want speed, you need to
    program in fortran or c.

    Furthermore, given that the G5's scalar performance (ie without
    Altivec) is equivalent to other similarly priced desktop systems,
    processor performance is not particularly interesting or relevant to
    selecting a computer.

    -Eric
    Eric Salathe Guest

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. flashpaper with the new pro mac dual-core Xeon
    By skowhegan in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 25th, 09:19 PM
  2. Dual mail delivery from scheduled task on dual-instanceCFMX7 Enterprise system
    By imag_je in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 17th, 10:59 AM
  3. How would I set up a dual bt w linux n XP
    By KW in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 17th, 01:03 AM
  4. how to put linux in 98/xp dual boot
    By Madhur in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 06:19 AM
  5. x86 Hardware-Single P4/800 FSB or Dual Xeon 533 FSB?
    By FSICorporate in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 15th, 10:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139